For all the benefit frothers out there

ILW

vaporate wrote: »

Not really. You have no choice in the matter either way.

You might as well argue about the Iraqi war as that is funded by tax money, same for bank bailouts and so on. (as well as being charged bank charges for the pleasure)

Take your pick.

True, I doubt if many have any influence over how our taxes are spent, but we all have a right to comment and hold a view. (I do not pay bank charges, that is something I do have some control over)

vaporate

ILW wrote: »

True, I doubt if many have any influence over how our taxes are spent, but we all have a right to comment and hold a view.

As far as it will go.

ILW

vaporate wrote: »

As far as it will go.

Not sure what you mean. Sorry

vaporate

In other words, nothing will change.

Unless the double duo take serious action with benefits.

ILW

Have to agree.

moggylover

ILW wrote: »

From my experience (and I believe official figures), the long term unemployed have some of the highest rates of smoking of all social groups.

And the shortest lives:( Although I can see that being a good thing to many peoples opinion on here:(

moggylover

vaporate wrote: »

None of your business though is it?

No, I agree it isn't really. However, I can see why some tax payers get so wound up at the uses that tax money is put to, despite the fact that I don't actually think it is anyones business but the person in receipt of the benefit;)

Doesn't mean I have to find the behaviour particularly acceptable either:D

PhylPho

"Poverty" will always be just another buzzword tossed around in a polite unreality as long as it is defined in fiscal terms alone. Society is comfortable with so self-servingly narrow a definition, for to broaden out its meaning -- poverty of intellect, poverty of parenting, poverty of expectation -- is to step dangerously close to the vexed issue of social engineering.

And it's impossible to get into that without being called a Fascist.

So, er, nobody does.

There must be hundreds of thousands of people on benefits who hate every minute of being dependent upon State charity, people who have either striven desperately to improve their lot but been worn down by successive defeats, or are still striving.

There must also be an equally significant number of benefits recipients to whom State charity is a way of life, people whose parents thought that way and people whose children are brought up -- if 'brought up' is even remotely accurate as a description -- with the same impoverished view of human life and the meaning of human existence.

Sorting the one lot from the other is probably impossible.

Kohoutek

PhylPho wrote: »

"Poverty" will always be just another buzzword tossed around in a polite unreality as long as it is defined in fiscal terms alone. Society is comfortable with so self-servingly narrow a definition, for to broaden out its meaning -- poverty of intellect, poverty of parenting, poverty of expectation -- is to step dangerously close to the vexed issue of social engineering.

Great post.

Sadly, I think you are spot on that 'poverty of parenting' and 'poverty of expectation' are leading causes of inequality and lack of social mobility in Britain. Unfortunately, issues that cannot be alleviated by simply spending more government money, or issues which are politically awkward to raise such as parenting, seldom receive the attention they desperately deserve.

I would certainly say that they are some of the most important reasons for underachievement and lack of aspiration in young people, not being in a household that has an income a certain percentage below the average. More teachers and new classrooms can only go so far if children's parents do not encourage them to achieve their potential, or actively discourage education beyond sixteen.

PhylPho

Kohoutek wrote: »

I would certainly say that they are some of the most important reasons for underachievement and lack of aspiration in young people, not being in a household that has an income a certain percentage below the average. More teachers and new classrooms can only go so far if children's parents do not encourage them to achieve their potential, or actively discourage education beyond sixteen.

Couldn't agree more, Kohoutek. Sadly though, few others are likely to say so -- and certainly, no politician, because to do so is to acknowledge that there are some things in Society that Society cannot address unless and until it becomes dangerously prescriptive. And who will sign up to that?

It's about generations. About mind-sets. About custom and practice.

The State can no more address that than hiking the price of alcohol can cure binge-drinking.